RSS 2.0 FeedHillary Clinton Abandons Baby Bonds, Proposes New Form Of Socialism
by Doug MataconisHillary Clinton is apparently as motivated by poll numbers as her husband, because she has apparently abandoned the idea of the $ 5,000 per child baby bonds I wrote about a while back after looking at the poll numbers.
That hasn’t stopped her from proposing another socialist scheme, though:
WEBSTER CITY, Iowa (AP) – Every citizen could get a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton’s largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don’t have enough savings for retirement.
At the same time, Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive—giving every baby born in the United States a $5,000 account to one day pay for college or a first home.
She made that suggestion last month before the Congressional Black Caucus, saying it was just an idea and not a policy proposal. The idea was criticized by Republicans, and she told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Tuesday that it’s off the table.
The campaign of her Democratic rival John Edwards suggested it was an example of Clinton setting her positions by polls. “Apparently, new polling data seems to have pressured the Clinton campaign to throw out the baby bond with the bathwater,” said Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis.
As for the retirement accounts, Clinton said during a campaign stop in small-town central Iowa, “They will begin to bring down this inequality that is eating away at our social contract.” She said, “This is a major commitment to how I believe we can begin to right the balance again.”
She said that for every $7 million estate that gets taxed, at least 5,000 families would receive the matching funds.
Hey Hillary, here’s an idea. You know that Social Security money you guys keep taking out of our paychecks ? How about letting us keep it, invest it on our own, and then leave us the heck alone ?
Social Security Redux?
Is this not what was supposed to happen with SS to begin with?
Wealth is confiscated. It’s stored until retirement. It’s redistributed.
What’s different this time?
Comment by Brian T. Traylor — October 9, 2007 @ 11:47 pmWithout commenting on the merits of this particular plan, I’d like to make a few general comments on redistribution of wealth.
1. The wealthy wield more political power per capita than the poor.
2. They use this political power to enhance their wealth by means of preferential tax benefits and government grants. Such economic distortions are seldom called socialism, even though economic distortions that benefit the poor ARE called socialism.
3. The wealthy derive greater benefits from the protection of law than the poor.
4. High values of the Gini Index in societies seem to be a causal factor in social conflict, including crime.
My point here is that merely labeling something as “socialism” does not by itself constitute a useful criticism.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 10, 2007 @ 10:50 am